Special Saint Lucia's Day celebration for you: Lucia coffee and buns from festively arrayed Bishzilla Lucia! ['Zilla twirls to display her becoming Lucia crown in the round.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 15:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• 
  Bishzilla Lucia
• 
  Cappuccino
• 
  Gingerbread
• 
  Saffron buns
• 
  Little helper bearing gift

Wow! MONGO extremely pleased by being so honored. Bishzilla even in festivities with fine crown of candles! I confess to never having saffron buns before...they look delicious! Little helper aptly named as bearer of gifts. Cappuccino with gingerbread perfect match. MONGO hunger abated...that's a good thing! Happy Saint Lucia's Day to you too mighty Bishzilla!--MONGO 16:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MONGO,

I want to try to relax our tightened relations. I don't like to be on bad terms with people even over internet. I think our debate went too personal once in a while. I don't think it's good for neither both of us, nor for aspiration of Wikipedia. I apologize. Since, I guess at least part of your objection to my edits might be due to misinterpretation of my motives, and possibly viewing me as an advocate for some repulsive behavior/people, which I'm definitely not, I added some information about myself and why I have currently been editing only these certain topics on my user page for anyone who might be questioning my good faith. Please, check it out. I don't want anyone to take me for as something I'm not. I also added some material as an attempt to answer one of the questions you asked on AWA talk page and to show that my views are not coming out from nowhere. Sincerely, ViperFace (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mostly writing from a very strong POV on the subject in question. As I mentioned before, modest proposals that are well balanced might work but your history of editing does not reflect that . I'm extremely busy in real life so not able to engage on that topic much now anyway.--MONGO 20:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Would you be interesting in helping to expand Murder of Kylie Maybury? I feel Kylie deserves better than the meagre article she has at the moment. Paul Austin (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Martin and Merry Christmas to you too!--MONGO 01:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for remembering me and I wish you all the same. Happy holidays!--MONGO 07:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd gotten the Jerry Thompson source for a completely different reason, but it looked like you could use it. Please format the source appropriately to your style if there's any problem. I could give exact page numbers, but didn't know how you wanted to handle that. BusterD (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kind sir! All I did was narrow down the pages a bit. Mike Cline had emailed about that source just yesterday so at least you two can find better sources than I! Much appreciated! Happy New Year!--MONGO 23:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the promotion of Raynolds to FA. Good job seeing it through --Mike Cline (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your contributions as well! We made an overlooked gentleman finally get the acclaim he deserves.--MONGO 23:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Good article. I am a somewhat of a history buff, but was unfamiliar with him. --rogerd (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Great work. Hard to believe where this all started. BusterD (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kind sirs! BusterD, you're a big player on that article what with all the expansion you did on Raynolds' military exploits...I think your efforts on that front greatly led to later additions and expansions. Happy New Year!--MONGO 13:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O, notorious MONGO!
Since you mentioned some concerns about 68.7.95.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I raised it here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Flowersforparis#15_January_2015. Your comments would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh out loud...thank you. Yeah, I can be a bit less than cordial when dealing with editors like that but I call it as I see it. Good show...--MONGO 02:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to annoy you? And prove that I'm not afraid of the notorious MONGO. Either that or I just made an error but that would mean that I was at fault. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine...no worries! But yes, I'm notorious!--MONGO 15:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be missing all the excitement from the IP and his love notes. Just saw email alerts about it. Thanks to my talkpage stalkers for the reverts!--MONGO 05:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He called me a former admin! That's as close to an admin as I've ever been. I guess the year block on his proxy IP account hurt. --DHeyward (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not missing much..it's more fun not being an admin! I was just about to get cordial with him/her/it too...--MONGO 07:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to write a couple of words, like four-five lines about William F. Raynolds for its entry in the Signpost? You are obviously the expert on this theme... Hafspajen (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• William F. Raynolds (1820-1894) was a civil engineer and graduate of the United States Military Academy who served in both the Mexican–American War and was a brevetted brigadier general for meritorious service in the American Civil War. During the American occupation of Mexico, in 1848 he led the first successful mountaineering expedition to the summit of Pico de Orizaba (18,620 feet (5,680 m)), inadvertently setting an American alpine record that was not surpassed for 50 years. In 1859, he was in charge of the Raynolds Expedition, the first U.S. government sponsored expedition to the region that later became Yellowstone National Park. Heavy snowpack from the previous winter forced the expedition south of Yellowstone and they became the first government sponsored party to enter Jackson Hole and survey the Teton Range. Reynolds designed and surpervised numerous lighthouse projects and several of those lighthouses are still in use and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

@Hafspajen:...hope that works and isn't too flowery.--MONGO 16:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfect. Love it!! Hafspajen (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans! Thanks for asking for my input! Have a good one!--MONGO 16:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the party! Let the explosions begin! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 20:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah!!! I am ready to party! Just think...can Wikipedia handle another TEN YEARS of the dreaded MONGO?--MONGO 20:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from the notorious infoboxes criminal! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are all notorious for something! Thank you!--MONGO 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years? Is that all? Talk to me when you hit 10 years 5 months! :) Congrats MONGO! Guettarda (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are super ancient! I missed your joining the geriatric committee so happy 10th plus to you too!--MONGO 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations my friend and thanks for all your help. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And many thanks to you as well!--MONGO 21:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock on till the break of dawn with Eadweard Muybridge and Laurel and Hardy! Bishonen | talk 21:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you kind human person! Very cute!--MONGO 00:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Corazon, I love you..gif
• 
• 
• File:Laurel & Hardy dancing.gif
• 
• 
• File:Hot Lava logo animated original.gif

Happy tenth birthday from me, MONGO. You are younger than I thought, though; here was me thinking you'd already reached the ten-year milestone here! :D Acalamari 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know...ten years of the dreaded MONGO is like an eternity! Best wishes!--MONGO 23:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a happy tenth from me, too. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you wise sage of the Pacific Northwest!--MONGO 06:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Fireworks! Music! Happy anniversary! Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kind sir! I missed your tenth...many many apologies for that omission.--MONGO 14:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I missed it myself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MONGO, you're in WP:9/11, did you ever see this in the Al-Qaeda#Sudan,

the Sudanese government offered the Clinton Administration numerous opportunities to arrest bin Laden. Those opportunities were met positively by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, but spurned when Susan Rice and counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke persuaded National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to overrule Albright

but not a word about it in Richard Clarke's bio. There is, however, a disproportionate amount of space of Clarke supposedly warning the Bush administration about the danger of bin Laden. nobs (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobs...it has been many years. I don't know if there is any truth to it...the 9/11 Commission said it was not true, but the information they had to go on was surely full of people in denial that they coulda shoulda etc. to protect their own butts.--MONGO 03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the Commission said they found no evidence, not that it was not true...The Susan Rice entry gives more detail:

Timothy M. Carney, U.S. ambassador to Sudan between September 1995 and November 1997, co-authored an op-ed in 2002 claiming that in 1997 Sudan offered to turn over its intelligence on bin Laden but that Rice, as NSC Africa specialist, together with the then NSC terrorism specialist Richard A. Clarke, successfully lobbied for continuing to bar U.S. officials, including the CIA and FBI, from engaging with the Khartoum government

The Ambassador presumably is a credible source, as are all the sources available. Turning over its intelligence is different than turning over the man. Either way, the usual suspects are the same, Rice and Clarke blocked the efforts (Rice seems to twice now have covered for al Qaeda, 1995 in Sudan and 2012 at Benghazi).

The main point is, why is this well sourced info in the Al Qaeda and Susan Rice articles, but the Richard Clarke article devotes a huge amount of space claiming Clarke tried to warn Bushies & neocons, and yet not a peep about criticism that he let bin Laden get away 8 years earlier? nobs (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its possible no one has attempted to put it in the Clarke article, or adjusted the information to better jive with the facts. I have to admit I never recollect editing any of those articles on Rice or Clarke. All my 9/11 related work was in the main articles about the attacks, the collapse and a couple others. I never had time to dwelve into more peripheral articles. Nefarious actions by Rice would never surprise me. It's amazing people fail to understand that when you elect a President you get all the other goodies too, like radical appointments of thugs, liars and thieves.--MONGO 06:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just made my first edit to Rice, adjusting the image caption.--MONGO 06:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rice couldn't become Sec. Of State because the Senate would have blocked it due to her coverup of Benghazi. However, she could become the National Security Advisor because with that position no confirmation is needed. American politics make me wretch...--MONGO 06:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are blp concerns in the Rice and Clark articles, but seem to get ignored for Scooter Libby, Sander Berger, et al when covering what essentially are the same background facts. Let's clarify some facts: Bill Clinton boasts today, "I tried to kill him" [meaning bin Laden]". Bin Laden fled Sudan after several assassination attempts which most sources attribute to local Islamic groups or a covert act by the Saudi government. The United States President, under US law, has the power to legally commit assassinations and kidnappings by issuing a Presidential Finding (WP's article on this is horrid). Anwar al-Awalki for example, an American citizen, was not Mirandized, denied an attorney, denied the right to a jury trial, and there was no presumption of innocence. He was whacked with a drone strike. This was legal because of a Presidential Finding.

In essence, the sources basically are saying Rice and Clarke opposed, or thwarted efforts, to get President Bill Clinton to issue a Finding authorizing Extraordinary rendition or other means (assassination). nobs (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all likely the case and I don't think, so long as it's impeccably referenced that it would violate BLP in the article, even though it's a bit subjective. Remember that prior to 9/11 there was far less cause to go after anyone, but even so, it's not like Bill Clinton did zero. He didn't do enough but that is easier to see now on the backside.--MONGO 15:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the broken Washington Post link in two articles. It seems the text from the Rice article could be cut n pasted into the Clarke article with little tweaks; problem is, it may need some context and the Clarke article shortened/expanded or restructured to fit. nobs (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did the tweaks; it still seems a bit unbalanced considering he spent 8 years in the Clinton administration and barely 2 years in the Bush administration. nobs (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for the pointers MONGO. It looks reasonably more like an encyclopedia entry and bio piece with some historical interest, hopefully. I'll be around somemore. Hey, congrats on 10 years, I'm on 9 years and 7 months now too. Not many oldtimers still edit on the original account. Check out my Essay:Worldview of ISIS jihadis; it's opening a world of possibilities right now. Thanks again. nobs (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about your deletions of this material here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Militarization_of_police It would be helpful if you could provide reliable sources to support your claims that this is "misinformation" and "disinformation", especially since three reliable sources have been cited and you have cited zero to substantiate your claims. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These "writers" that misrepresent the story of Kyle claiming HE shot people from the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. Kyle did fabricate the story of snipers shooting persons from atop he Superdome but he never once stated that he did so himself. The orginal story is from an op-ed written by another navy seal and is here at this link. The news media has bamboozled people into the lie that Kyle claimed he was there...he never made that claim. These "journalists" are apparently too slovenly to do their own research before writing a "news" piece. The fabrication of information to fit an agenda is one of the things that brings discredit to some media outlets and news magazines. Webb's piece predates these sources and it is from that that the lies were spun. Of course, chickshit cowards can easily smear a person after they are dead and no longer capable of defending themselves.--MONGO 15:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you and an admin named FeloniousMonk once threatened me with arbcom action. It was awhile ago, but I still remember how it turned out. Remember, I have nothing to lose because I don't care anymore. You, however, do, because your articles that you are trapped into protecting might not stay on message if you don't keep watching them. Good times! Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't care but you failed miserably again to get me topic banned? You don't care but you wanted to use this website to make a buck. You don't care but you're still here? Okie dokie.--MONGO 01:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where I asked for you to be topic banned in my enforcement request? Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an arbitration case regarding those articles....you went to AE...what other purpose would AE serve?--MONGO 01:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger picture. Bigger than that topic area. It wasn't personal. If it had been someone else besides you needling that editor, I still would have made the request. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What hypocrisy. You spent years stalking SlimVirgin and others...you've trolled and harassed others many times and you think because myself and another editor were poking and or harmlessly teasing some guy that had an agenda that we deserve sanctions. Get real. Everyone who has ever tried to get me topic banned from those pages has lost and that will never change so accept it. Since I know you can't be so dumb that you thought that your complaint would succeed that is why it is harassment.--MONGO 01:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AT one time Mr. Cla68 was making excellent contributions to Wikipedia. More recently he seems to always take the anti-scientific fringe sides and has an extremely disruptive attitude with a thin veneer of "civil". An attitude of anti-scientific fringe thinking is disruptive for an encyclopedia and violates NPOV and undo weight. His editing pattern seems to have degenerated into almost exclusively these disruptive activities like the harassment against you. When he harassed me he had much more credibility and was able to be much more disruptive. For his own good and the good of the encyclopedia, it may be best if he restricted his hatred of Wikipedia to activities only on Wikipediocracy? Bill Huffman (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is an odd cat in my opinion and I won't hesitate to repeat that to arbcom if needed. In reality, he's not really bothering me since I know it's just trolling. I used to think that he strayed sometimes from his usually excellent FA work to get involved in silly things, but now I feel more convinced than ever that the FA work was just a cover to protect him so he could troll. His stalking of certain editors, particularly female editors such I alluded to above, never sat well with me in the least, and that stalking behavior dates back many years now. In a perfect world, Cla68 would simply resume his excellent FA work and stop monkeying around with this other nonsense...but looks like we would be fools to believe that is ever going to happen as he seems to make that clear here as well. As he states above...he does not care anymore.--MONGO 18:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listened to a really cool TED talk on all the critters that live in the canopy of redwoods and folks that climb up there. Might be interesting to buff Sequoia sempervirens at some point to GA/FA......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber! That article should be at least GA...tallest living thing on the planet at present....most of them were cut down. I helped bring Redwoods National and State Parks to FA years ago and it needs updating badly so working on both would be a good idea. The current article is expansive but it might need to be more comprehensive such as in the detail you have brought up. I do have another article stewing at present that needs to be expanded to send to peer review and then maybe FAC....but I can set aside time for the redwoods.--MONGO 02:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No rush - this and its neck-and-neck competitor mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) I have thought about for some time - I have a funny photo somewhere on my hard drive - someone planted a redwood in a patch of mountain ash forest east of Melbourne - the two growing side by side...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptus regnans can grow 65 metres in 50 years! I had no idea they were that fast growing. Amazing! I have now watchlisted both and ran citation bot on Redwoods yesterday. I've become very slow moving on FAs partly because the national park articles I work on lead me to write a hundred plus support articles on any mountains, lakes, glaciers and even hiking trails and buildings within those parks...so I get sidetracked. Planting a redwood and Eucalyptus regnans next to each other wouldn't be a fair fight in a human lifetime what with the Australian species growing so fast compared to the slow growing redwood. I had thought that some of the Eucalyptus were believed to have historically exceeded 400 feet in height in the past. I bet historically that Eucalyptus regnans is taller....with rate they grow that might still happen in my lifespan if there are any close competitors with the current tallest redwood. I hope the Australian species wasn't cut down to the extent the redwoods were...which was a shameful waste.--MONGO 16:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on Lambertia formosa...I see it's on the main page today.--MONGO 17:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your numerous personal attacks against several editors on Talk:American Sniper (film) and Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/American Sniper (film) controversies are against wikipedia policy and can lead to you getting blocked or banned. --IjonTichy (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those things are going to happen...you will compromise and stop POV pushing or those things will happen to you. You're already topic banned from an unrelated article...this one is next if you persist in misusing this website to POV push. I'm not offering any compromises until you cease with your disruptions.--MONGO 19:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even after the POV coatrack you created was voted to be merged and closed, you were still adding more to the coatrack...[1]...your aggressive efforts are undermining much chance for even moderate voices to agree with you.--MONGO 19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to continue to personally attack editors, despite polite requests to stop. Accusations of POV pushing on an article talk page can be seen to be a personal attack. You also appear to have issued ad hominem attacks on editors on the related AfD discussion of the separate, stand-alone controversies article. You also appear to engage in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing by removing sourced content and engaging in ad hominem attacks on sources and voicing your personal disapproval of the source(s) because you just don't like them, instead of discussing e.g. the reliability of the source(s) and other policy issues related to the citation(s) from the source(s). IjonTichy (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]